vandenArendTCL10 1 PDF

Teaching Classical Languages Volume 10, Issue 1
van den Arend 1
Something Old, Something New: Marrying Early

Modern Latin Pedagogy and Second Language
Acquisition (SLA) Theory1
Alan van den Arend

Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
Growing interest in ‘active’ Latin has prompted much discussion regarding the role
of contemporary Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Theory in Latin instruction.
Often framed as a contest between ‘traditional’ (Grammar-Translation) and
‘new’ (SLA-informed) pedagogies, debate in the field has proceeded according
to assumptions regarding the relative historicity of both frameworks with little
reference to the recorded tradition of Latin teaching practices. In short, present
discussions have not been situated in the timeline of actual historical developments.
This article attempts to redress this apparent lack of discussion by comparing
basic principles of contemporary SLA-informed pedagogy with strategies from
educational treatises published between the years 1511 and 1657. It seeks (1) to
demonstrate the existence of an early modern Latin pedagogy with principles like
those supported by contemporary SLA research, (2) to offer a comparative reading
of that pedagogy’s premises with consensus positions of current SLA-informed
instruction, and (3) to reflect upon the potential uses of this comparison for present-
day Latin teaching. This reading is exemplary, targeting one model for Latin peda-
gogy from the early modern period. Investigation remains necessary to identify
both the scope and the depth of this tradition and its potential usefulness for re-
imagining Latin teaching in the 21st century.
Keywords
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory, Early Modern Studies, Renaissance
Studies, intellectual history, history of education, active Latin, pedagogy
1 A version of this paper was delivered at the 2016 American Classical League Institute in Austin,
Texas. The author is thankful to all who attended that presentation as well as this journal’s review-
ers for their kind response and thoughtful suggestions for revision. He especially wishes to express
his gratitude to Ms. Elizabeth Hestand, Ms. Samantha Rodgers, Mr. Justin Schwamm, and Mr. John
Scurfield for their sage input and advice.
van den Arend, Alan. “Something Old, Something New: Marrying Early Modern Latin
Pedagogy and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Theory.” Teaching Classical
Languages 10.1 (2018): 1-32. ISSN 2160-2220.
van den Arend 2
Left Behind?
Interest in ‘active’ Latin2 and second language acquisition (SLA) pedagogy
has grown significantly over the past three decades. The Conventiculum Lexingtoni-
ense (a conference focused on developing Latin proficiency) has ballooned in atten-
dance from about a dozen enthusiasts in 1996 to more than 75 individuals annually.
Once the only such gathering in the United States, it has served as a model for nearly
a half-dozen similar events across the country.3 K-12 Latin educators, among whom
there has been an explosion of interest in SLA theory, are fueling this growth. No
longer a topic of side conversations at annual meetings, discussions of contemporary
SLA strategies have become mainstream at local, regional, and national Latin gath-
erings, supported by a boom in social networking and idea-sharing opportunities
occasioned by the internet.4 Peer-reviewed scholarship has not gone uninfluenced
by this trend. Publications in this journal and elsewhere have addressed this growing
interest, contextualizing it in both theoretical and practical terms.5 The relationship
between SLA research and classical language pedagogy has blossomed into a sig-
nificant consideration for Latin instructors at all levels.
This development is not without political context or implication. Declining
enrollments in Latin and closures of departments across the country have placed
strain on the field at all levels (Goldberg, Looney and Lusin 2-3, 6). The turn toward
alternative pedagogies perceived to be research-supported is not surprising as teach-
ers seek new avenues to sustain and develop programs. Dr. Ted Zarrow, the 2015-
2016 ACTFL Teacher of the Year, articulated this sense of urgency in his ACL In-
stitute plenary address in 2016. Reflecting on his experiences as a national advocate
2 Alternatively called ‘living’ Latin or ‘spoken’ Latin. Though the nomenclature varies, all versions
assume that spoken/written use of the language is integral to the acquisition process. The focus on
Latin in this paper is a product of the more developed tradition addressing Latin instructional prac-
tices throughout the Modern period. Though the community is smaller, a pedagogical movement
for ‘active’ Greek has also developed, e.g. at the Polis Institute in Jerusalem and the Accademia
Vivarium Novum in Italy.
3 Including (under the auspices of various groups/individuals) the Conventicula Dickinsoniense,
Bostoniense, Vasingtoniense; SALVI’s Rusticatio Tironum, Rusticatio Veteranorum, and Rusticatio
Paedagogica; the Paideia Institute’s “Living Latin in New York” program; and a wide range of
shorter events and meetings occurring annually at various locations across the country.
4 E.g., the Facebook groups “Teaching Latin for Acquisition” or “Latin Teacher Idea Exchange”
as well as listserv groups like “Latin Teacher Best Practices.” The Presidential Panel at the 2018
meeting of CAMWS-SS, “Latin Pedagogy and Active Latin,” underscores the extent to which these
developments have prompted concerted professional reflection on the subject.
5 In this journal, vide: Carlon 2013 and 2016, Rasmussen 2015, Lindzey 2015, and Patrick 2015.
van den Arend 3
for world languages instruction, he offered the trenchant observation that “if we do
not begin to embrace the lessons of modern second language acquisition [SLA], we
are going to be left behind.” Framed this way, exploring the applicability of SLA
research to classical language pedagogy is not just an opportunity for expanding the
field’s instructional repertoire; it could be seen as existentially essential.
Alongside these developments, rhetoric in the field has depicted Latin in-
structional practice as a contest between two broad methodological categories:
Grammar-Translation pedagogy (the ‘traditional’ model) versus SLA-informed
pedagogy (the ‘new’ method). This perspective is problematic for several reasons,
e.g., its dichotomous structure, a failure to consider hybridization of methods, the
occlusion of long-developed alternative approaches (e.g., the Reading Method), and
a hierarchy of privilege that tends to posit one set of instructional strategies as uni-
versally and ubiquitously ‘correct’ in contrast to the other. Though the specifics of
these arguments are, regrettably, beyond the scope of this paper, most practitioners
of both schools claim to pursue the same ends: helping students develop sufficient
reading ability to engage original Latin texts with little need to rely upon lexical and
or grammatical aids.
This paper seeks to address both narratives via a reading of the history of
Latin instruction that demonstrates long-standing affinities with principles closely
aligned to both modern SLA research and grammar-translation methods. Specifi-
cally, I will complicate the issue of the traditional/novel dyad through a comparative
reading of current principles in SLA theory alongside four early modern educational
treatises about Latin pedagogy. The aim of this approach is two-fold. First, I want to
highlight shared (and divergent) philosophical positions between SLA research and
early modern Latin pedagogy. Second, I will suggest that appeals to ‘keep up’ with
modern language methods ought to be reformulated as arguments for a return to
long-established traditions in classical language pedagogy adopted/adapted through
the lens of modern SLA research. This should be informed by a conjunctive ap-
proach to established pedagogies and the insights of SLA theory – the answer is not
either/or, but yes/and.
Relationship Trouble
Three problems emerge: (1) what does it mean to speak of an ‘early mod-
ern’ Latin pedagogy? (2) Which variant(s) of SLA theory are we discussing in this
context? And (3) what does it mean to ‘marry’ the two together, given the historical
van den Arend 4
gap between the early modern period and today? Is such a union feasible, and under
what conditions?
The scope of post-Classical (and especially Neo-) Latin publication and its
relatively unexplored condition impede speaking of any era in monolithic terms. As
Jürgen Leonhardt estimates in Latin: Story of a World Language, total post-Classical
Latin output exceeds extant Classical sources by a factor of ten thousand (2). Many
of these sources remain completely unexamined. The breadth of post-Classical Lat-
in publication on issues of educational theory alone presents a formidable challenge.
Répertoire des ouvrages pédagogique du XVIe siècle offers a survey of hundreds of
works addressing all aspects of pedagogy, from teaching the alphabet to advanced
composition (Buisson). Untold more address the topic without explicit indication in
the title.6 Many of these texts remain unaddressed in publications concerning Latin
education practices during this period.
I will explore four works as representative of one strand of Latin pedagogical
thinking in the early modern era: Desiderius Erasmus’ Ratio studii ac legendi inter-
pretandique auctores (1511) and De pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis (1523);
Johannis Posselius Maior’s De ratione discendae ac docendae linguae Latinae et
Graecae (1589); and Johannis Amos Comenius’ Opera Didactica Omnia (1657).7
This maneuver is not to elide competing positions on Latin pedagogy prevalent
during the period or to suggest a monolithic conceptualization of Latin instruction,
but to outline a general approach through the works of three important thinkers. The
choice of Erasmus, Posselius, and Comenius as exemplars rests on the weight of
their influence within and beyond the field of early modern pedagogy.8
Writing in distinctly different socio-political contexts and eras, each of these
authors shares a commitment to active Latin for purposes ranging from general hu-
manist education, to engaged participation in the Res Publica Litterarum, to – in
6 To offer one example of a less-obvious source, Johann Walch’s Historia Critica Linguae Latinae
contains multiple sections addressing pedagogical issues and provides an annotated bibliography
directing interested readers to further sources.
7 Interested individuals can access editions of each of these texts through Google Books.
8 Erasmus’ De ratione studii was published in 11 editions across Europe between 1511 and 1645.
His De pueris institutendis saw at least 15 distinct editions between 1523 and 1556. All told, over
300 editions of Erasmus’ pedagogical works were published within a century of his death. Posselius’
pedagogical texts were published in nearly 20 editions between 1585-1620. Portions of Comenius’
Opera Didactica Omnia were first published beginning in 1627, with the whole work seeing its first
edition in 1657. Hundreds of printings of Comenius’ various educational treatises were run across
the western world.
van den Arend 5
Comenius’ case – preparation for the second coming of Christ. Of the three, only
Comenius explicitly endorses a universal model of education like the one common
today.9 All three authors assume the primacy of Latin in the school curriculum and
its daily utility for students as the international vehicle language for important work
in politics, law, medicine, theology, philosophy, and (nascent) science. To that end,
their pedagogies aimed at developing spoken and written Latin skills, especially
for reading classical, medieval, and contemporary Latin texts.10 Despite the sub-
stantial gap between early modern and present-day educational environments, the
shared goal of reading proficiency offers substantial justification for the continued
relevance of early modern Latin pedagogies.
Specifying a variant of SLA theory is no less fraught with difficulty, due to
its relative novelty and the lack of consensus on key issues regarding processes and
methods of acquisition. Rather than ground my argument directly in any specific
theoretical framework, I will contextualize it in terms of the essential components
of SLA-informed instruction provided in Shrum & Glisan’s Teacher’s Handbook:
Contextualized Language Instruction (5th ed.), an ACTFL-endorsed foreign lan-
guage pedagogy textbook.11 Though their perspective is oriented in/by the Socio-
cultural Theory of language acquisition, the components of language teaching that
they outline are, with the exception of Zones of Proximal Development, supported
by many of the most popular SLA theories. Their work therefore serves as a reason-
able ground for investigating relationships between SLA research in toto and early
modern Latin pedagogy as outlined in the selected texts.
The metaphor of marriage is apt for addressing the final challenge. The ob-
ject is not to suggest that early modern pedagogy in any way represents intuitive
knowledge of the positions that current SLA theory has reached. Nor is it to suggest
9 On which, see Sadler 2013. Erasmus’ position is much less obvious. He links education to the hu-
man condition throughout DPI but appears to treat it only in the context of male students. Whatever
we might glean from his Abbas et Erudita, Erasmus’ position on gender in education remains unclear.
Posselius offers no position different from his contemporaries. To my knowledge, none of these au-
thors indicate any substantial consideration of other minority groups generally excluded from educa-
tion during the 16th and 17th centuries.
10 For a more thorough look at this history, readers should consult Tunberg 2014 and Minkova 2014.
Concerning methods for learning to speak Latin during the early modern period, readers should see
Tunberg 2012.
11 My choice to rely upon Shrum & Glisan is strategic. As the ACTFL endorsed/aligned instructed
SLA text, it offers the best introduction for teachers to the application of SLA theory and includes
bibliographies of major articles on the key issues addressed in this paper. Given these facts, it proves
the most convenient single reference text for language instructors.
van den Arend 6
that current positions in SLA are the teleological consequence of roots laid down
in the 16th-17th centuries. Instead, I will bring the two traditions into a conversation
with one another by reading early modern Latin pedagogy with/against contempo-
rary SLA theory and vice versa. This emphasizes their points of intersection while
highlighting their differences in perspective(s) and assumptions. The goal is to gen-
erate comparative reflection, not to subsume either perspective within the other. It
unifies distinct intellectual traditions while maintaining their individual natures and
the contexts in which they developed, i.e., it marries early modern Latin pedagogy
and SLA Theory.
Key Concepts in SLA Theory

Shrum and Glisan outline eight points that constitute the field’s consensus
regarding SLA-informed language instruction. According to them, such teaching
provides:
1. Comprehensible input in the target language that is directed toward
a larger communicative goal or topic;
2. An interactive environment that models and presents a variety of

social, linguistic, and cognitive tools for structuring and interpret-
ing participation in talk;
3. Opportunities for learners to interact communicatively with one an-

other in the target language;
4. Conversations and tasks that are purposeful and meaningful to the

learner and that parallel real-life situations in which they might ex-
pect to use their language skills;
5. Explicit instruction in strategies that facilitate language awareness,

learner autonomy, and making meaning when interpreting the for-
eign language;
6. A nonthreatening environment that encourages self-expression;

van den Arend 7
7. Opportunities for learners to work within their Zones of Proximal

Development [ZPDs] in order to develop their language and trans-
form their knowledge;
8. Opportunities for language learners to participate in setting the

agenda for what they learn. (36)12
These points address the types of communication that ought to occur in the lan-
guage-learning classroom (1, 3, 4, and 5), the nature of the classroom as a place of
language acquisition (2 and 6), and the role(s) of the student and instructor in the
language-learning process (7 and 8). Shrum and Glisan also highlight consensus on
issues like the use of authentic resources in instruction and the qualities of an effec-
tive language teacher – both essential topics for SLA-informed language instruction
(passim, esp. 188-94). These ten issues (1-8 above plus [9] ‘authentic resources’ and
[10] qualities of an effective teacher) form the backbone of my analysis.
I will proceed by theme, addressing the points as outlined in the categories
above. In each instance, I offer a summary of related SLA research, followed by an
evaluation of relevant selections from each of the early modern texts. The citations
operate illustratively, providing a sense of the scope of this pedagogic tradition.
They are not exhaustive either within the work(s) cited or across the various texts
presented for analysis here.
Types of Communication: Comprehensible Input

Stephen Krashen’s five hypotheses of second language acquisition set the
stage for current discussions in SLA beginning in the late 1970s and early 1980s
(Shrum and Glisan 16-18; Krashen). Though much critiqued on theoretical grounds,
the terms outlined by Krashen constituted many of the key research directions for
SLA over subsequent decades. Central to his five hypotheses is the concept of Com-
prehensible Input (CI), which states that “we acquire language that contains a struc-
ture a bit beyond our current level of competence (I + 1). This is done with the help
12 As one reviewer astutely observed, this list offers no further comment on the priority, relative
weighting, or the interrelationships of these instructional components. Though substantial research
supports, e.g., the necessity of comprehensible input, various schools of language acquisition address
that fact differently in relation to the other criteria listed. For that reason, a full review of the literature
discussing the topic is beyond the scope of this paper. Readers interested in a general overview and
comparison of the various prominent schools of SLA theory should consult VanPatten and Williams
2014.
van den Arend 8
of context or extra-linguistic information” (Krashen 20-30). Theoretical consensus

holds that CI is a necessary component of effective second language instruction.
Students acquire a second language via comprehensible input delivered in the target
language.
Engaging students with understandable messages in Latin is a primary point
of instruction for our early modern sources. Posselius expresses the futility of ask-
ing students to deal with language that is incomprehensible to them: “What does it
accomplish that boys, like parrots, repeat words they don’t understand and are bur-
dened with busywork?” (138).13 The expected answer is obvious: little-to-nothing.
He assumes that students will be engaging meaningfully with Latin at a level that
they find to be intelligible, if challenging. The minimum standard for second lan-
guage study in contemporary SLA theory and this line of early modern pedagogy is,
in principle, the same: input must be comprehensible.
A key part of maintaining comprehensibility is ensuring that topics of discus-
sion are conceptually accessible to learners. Regardless of the linguistic simplicity
of the message, if its content is unintelligible, the exercise is moot. Comenius, who
is concerned primarily with the Latin education of younger children, emphasizes
this reality:
Nothing is retained with youth except what their age
and disposition not only admit but even seek out. Let
them be ordered to memorize nothing except what is
properly understood . . . . Let nothing be given over to
practice except that whose form and standards of imi-
tation have been sufficiently demonstrated. (1: 84)14
13 Quorsum enim attinet, pueros, psittaci more, verba non intellecta reddere, & eos inutili labore
onerari? N.B.: Citations of Latin text in this paper follow the conventions of the editions referenced.
Readers unfamiliar with 16th c. orthography and punctuation will note some variance from present-
day, Anglophone editorial practices, e.g., a pronounced tendency toward comma-insertion and capi-
talization. Interested parties should refer to Bloemendal & Nellen 2014 and Deneire 2014.
14 Nihil cum Iuventute tentetur, nisi quod aetas et ingenium, non solum admittunt, sed et appetunt.
Nihil memoriae mandare iubeantur, nisi quod intellectu probe comprehensum est . . . . Nihil agendum
committitor, nisi cuius forma, et imitandi norma, sufficienter monstrata fuerint. Later at 1: 128 – “It
follows that a child’s understanding of a language chiefly ought to be formed around childish things,
with adult matters set aside for a more mature age, since those who assign to students Cicero and
other great authors, who write about topics over a child’s head, do so in vain. You see, if they don’t
understand things, how will they grasp the art of expressing those things deftly?” Sequitur, ut Intel-
lectum ita Sermonem formandum esse pueris circa puerilia potissimum, virilibus adultiori aetati
relictis: ut frustra sint, qui pueris Ciceronem, aliosque grandes Autores, quae supra puerilem captum
van den Arend 9
This is substantiated by research that links student development with the SLA pro-
cess at varying ages and stages of learning (Shrum and Glisan passim, esp. 104-135
and 140-166). Ensuring that a message is comprehensible means focusing not only
on its linguistic components but also on issues like content, style, and method of
delivery.
Students’ language proficiencies do not always develop contemporaneously
and consistently across modes. Receptive faculties of listening and reading seem
to precede active faculties of writing and speaking, with extemporaneous speaking
proceeding most slowly. Comenius was aware of this progressive, uneven develop-
ment, and recommended that instruction begin with (comprehensible) input before
proceeding to writing and, finally, speaking (1: 83).15 These suggestions align with
Krashen’s claims that input precedes output, and that written proficiency develops
ahead of oral proficiency because of editing opportunities in the writing process (the
Monitor Hypothesis).16
At least some early modern sources, then, reflect a concern for providing stu-
dents with Latin input that essentially meets the criteria of the comprehensible input
standard in SLA research-informed pedagogy today. These instructors advocate for
the delivery of messages that are (1) understandable, (2) appropriately contextual-
ized to be intelligible to the learner, and (3) ideally meaningful/interesting. More-
over, their pedagogies recognize the uneven development of language proficiencies,
and especially the late development of active language skills (esp. speaking) relative
to receptive skills like listening and reading. Though unsupported by the scientific
data of contemporary research, this early modern instructional tradition anticipated
the core consensus position of modern SLA theory: the need for comprehensible
input in the language-learning environment.
sunt tractantes, proponunt. Si enim res non capiunt, quomodo artificia res istas nervose exprimendi
capient?
15 “Let the study of a new language proceed gradually, so that at first the student learns to understand
(you see, that’s the easiest part) then to write (where time is given for planning), [and] finally to speak
(which, because it happens on the spot, is the most challenging).” Linguae novae studium gradatim
procedat: ut nempe primo discipulus consuescat Intelligere (id enim facillimum) tum Scribere (ubi
praemeditationi tempus datur) tandem Loqui (quod quia extemporaneum est, difficillimum).
16 E.g., “The final part of the input hypothesis states that speaking fluency cannot be taught directly.
Rather, it ‘emerges’ over time, on its own . . . . Early speech will come when the acquirer feels
‘ready’; this state of readiness arrives at somewhat different times for different people” (Krashen 22).
On the Monitor Hypothesis, see Krashen 15-20.
van den Arend 10
Types of Communication: Output & Interaction

In response to Krashen, Merrill Swain has suggested that though CI is neces-
sary for SLA to occur, it is not sufficient. In her Output Hypothesis, Swain proposes
that, in addition to a significant quantity of CI, students also need to use the lan-
guage actively to acquire it (Shrum and Glisan 22-23; Swain 1985, 1995, and 2000).
Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis posits the additional need for that output
to occur via interaction and the negotiation of meaning (Shrum and Glisan 21-22;
Long 1981, 1983, 1996). These positions offer theoretical foundations for models of
instruction such as Long’s Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), which leverages
interactions based on student interests to drive SLA.17 In TBLT, students identify a
communicative task as a goal for their second language learning. The instructor then
targets classroom activities to help students acquire the linguistic structures needed
to successfully accomplish the task. Students’ linguistic proficiency develops be-
cause of active engagement in negotiating meaning to achieve self-directed goals.18
Swain’s and Long’s arguments have become accepted components of many current
schools of SLA-research informed pedagogy (Shrum and Glisan 21-23).19
Early modern sources are clear about the importance of active communica-
tion for language acquisition in the Latin classroom. Posselius takes the communica-
tive use of Latin as a given for its instruction (141).20 Erasmus makes a similar point
in his De ratione studii (DRS), preferring that students begin actively speaking Latin
as soon as they have acquired the basics of phonetics and orthography (125).21 This
17 On TBLT, see, e.g., Long 2014.
18 E.g., in a modern second language classroom students might voice the desire to learn how to rent
an apartment in a country where the target language is primary. TBLT instruction would proceed by
assessing students’ current abilities to engage in the necessary steps for securing housing (browsing
ads, communicating needs/wants, negotiating a price, reading a contract, etc.) and developing inter-
active activities to support the acquisition of needed skills. Proficiency would be determined by the
students’ ability to successfully complete all tasks in a simulated environment. Adaptation of TBLT
for classical languages necessarily must be more creative, e.g., accomplishing a task-goal of “write a
letter in Latin” via a study of Latin epistolary culture.
19 Reflected directly in the literature on “Focus on Form” instructional techniques prompted by Long
1991. E.g., the PACE instructional model outlined in Shrum & Glisan 206ff.
20 “Concerning the exercise of speaking Latin, I’ll say nothing here. You see, educated and wise men
know that it is entirely necessary, and cannot be neglected or omitted without great inconvenience
for the students.” De exercitio latine loquendi hic non dicam. Sciunt enim viri docti & sapientes, id
omnino necessarium esse, & sine magno discentium incommodo negligi aut omitti non posse.
21 “But Fabius already offered enough advice concerning the instruction of boys’ mouths and the
teaching of the letters’ shapes, whether through play or joke. For my part, after the primary parts [of
the language] have been taught, I would prefer that the boy be immediately summoned to the practice
van den Arend 11
rests on his conviction that facility in Latin is best acquired through a combination
of correct (emendate) speaking and reading: “You see, the true faculty of speaking
without error is best provided on the one hand by conversation and interaction with
individuals who speak without error, and on the other by a close reading of eloquent
authors” (DRS 115).22 Comenius (1: 96) and Erasmus (DRS 119) emphasize the
importance of communication in the learning process, including in the form of peer-
to-peer instruction.23 All three early modern sources agree on the need for active
language use and communicative tasks in Latin pedagogy, though Erasmus’ em-
phasis on beginning with phonetics and orthography is not necessary in the models
proposed by Krashen, Swain, and Long.
Erasmus and Comenius both address the need to ensure that communicative
tasks given to students are compelling and meaningful to them in their daily lives.
Comenius stresses relevance in language instruction (1: 88).24 Erasmus, in his De
pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis, focuses on compelling content that is age-
and audience-appropriate:
In selecting these examples, the instructor will take
care that he especially put forth that which he judges
to be most pleasing and most well-known and beloved
and, so to speak, flowery . . . to which end the teacher
ought to observe what best suits each age. Joyful and
pleasant things best suit boyhood. (DPI 68-9)25
of speaking [it].” Iam vero de formando puerorum ore deque tradendis ceu per lusum iocumque lite-
rarum figuris, satis praecepit Fabius. Equidem post tradita elementa prima, malim ad usum loquendi
statim vocari puerum.
22 Nam vera emendate loquendi facultas optime paratur, cum ex castigate loquentium colloquio
convictuque, tum ex eloquentium auctorum assidua lectione.
23 Comenius: “Whatever has been taught, let it be transferred again via communication from
some [of the students] to others, lest anything be known in vain. You see, in this sense the say-
ing is true that your knowledge is nothing unless someone else knows that you know it.” Quic-
quid perceptum est, transfundatur iterum aliis communicando in alios: ne quidquam frus-
tra sciatur. Eo enim sensu verum est: Scire tuum nihil esse nisi te scire hoc sciat alter.
Erasmus: “Finally, it would not lead to a single certain end, but at once will contribute greatly to all of
them, if you should also frequently teach others. You see, you’ll never grasp better what you under-
stand, what you don’t.” Postremo illud non ad unum aliquid, sed ad omnia simul plurimum conducet,
si frequenter alios quoque doceas. Nusquam enim melius depraehenderis quid intelligas, quid non.
24 “Let nothing be taught except that which has the most substantial use, for this life and the next.”
Nihil tractetur nisi quod solidissimum habeat usum, ad hanc et futuram vitam.
25 In deligendis his [exemplis] vigilabit institutor, ut quod iudicabit maxime gratum pueris max-
van den Arend 12
Tailoring second language work to meet learners’ needs and interests is a core prin-
ciple of SLA instruction methods like Teaching Proficiency through Reading and
Storytelling (TPRS) and Long’s TBLT. Though TPRS and TBLT differ in their as-
sumptions regarding the importance of learner output for the acquisition process,
both emphasize the need for learners to develop meaningful connections with rel-
evant and interesting material in the target language.
The extent to which students should engage in spoken Latin is a central dis-
crepancy between proponents of active Latin and grammar translation approaches,
and it represents an area where the historical contexts of teachers like Erasmus, Pos-
selius, and Comenius differ substantially enough from contemporary concerns to
warrant comment. As I noted above, these instructors could take for granted (a) the
primacy of Latin in an educational environment where instruction in the language
occupied the bulk of the school day, and (b) the centrality of (written and spoken)
Latin in the international intellectual community. Neither of these conditions exists
in today’s educational environment, in which fortunate students receive only an hour
of Latin instruction per day and are exceedingly unlikely to find themselves in a situ-
ation where they might be compelled to use it as a lingua franca.
That said, both SLA research and early modern intuition recognize the re-
ciprocally beneficial relationship between active and receptive language use for de-
veloping proficiency, regardless of the amount of available instructional time or
the likelihood of students’ active use of a second language beyond the classroom
(Shrum and Glisan passim, esp. 172-200 and 231-71). For that reason (among oth-
ers), the communication standard in the Standards for Classical Language Learning
and the World Readiness Standards now focuses on the types of communication
(interpretive, interpersonal, presentational) in which students are likely to engage
rather than specific linguistic skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening) they use.
Despite different historical and social contexts, an early modern approach that rec-
ognizes the importance of comprehensible input and output could offer substantial
insight to instructors interested in SLA-informed Latin pedagogy.
Types of Communication: Explicit Grammar Instruction

Krashen’s work also raised a point of contention concerning the efficacy
of explicit grammar instruction in the second language classroom. Developing a
imeque cognatum et amabile ac, ut ita dicam, florulentum, id potissimum proponat . . . ita praeceptori
observandum est quid cuique congruat aetati. Iucunda et amoena pueritiae convenient.
van den Arend 13
distinction between language acquisition and learning, he has argued that explicit
grammatical instruction has no impact on language acquisition (a ‘zero-interface’
position). For Krashen, there is a difference between learning a language (explicitly
memorizing rules, paradigms, syntax structures, etc.) and acquiring one (uncon-
sciously building mental representation and skill). According to him, explicit gram-
mar instruction does not produce language acquisition, but at best “acts as an editor,
as a Monitor, ‘correcting’ the errors, or rather what the performer perceives to be
errors, in the output of the acquired system” (Krashen 83ff.).
The median position in the discussion posits a ‘weak-interface’ between
instructed grammar and language acquisition (e.g., Ellis 2008). According to this
argument, explicit grammar instruction can play a role in some SLA processes,
though they are fairly limited in both scope and number. These approaches heav-
ily emphasize the contextual nature of grammar and argue for methods based on
‘noticing’ (calling students’ attention to a specific grammatical feature in context),
‘co-construction of meaning’ (working with the students to deduce a structure’s
function), and ‘pop-up’ instruction (very brief, meaning-oriented lessons on the use
of grammar in a passage) that eschews linguistic jargon for a focus on contextual-
ized pragmatics. For example, in Donato and Adair-Hauck’s (2002) PACE model of
instruction, lessons proceed by Presenting students with a new linguistic structure
in context (e.g., in a reading passage), drawing their Attention to the new structure
after they have engaged with their passage in other ways, working together to Co-
construct a meaning for the structure and a ‘rule’ for its function based on the con-
text, and then practicing the structure through exercises that Extend its use to new
linguistic environments. This approach directs students to focus first on the meaning
of the communication, then on the form of the new grammatical structure, situating
it in terms of both its communicative function and a broader linguistic context that
renders it more easily comprehensible to the students.
A few theories of SLA postulate a ‘strong-interface’ between grammar in-
struction and student acquisition of targeted structures (e.g., DeKeyser 1995). For
these models of learning, explicit identification and drilling of grammar rules and
structures is an integral part of effective SLA instruction and ought not be eschewed.
Skill Acquisition Theory, for example, places a premium on targeted practice and
drilling to develop automaticity in language processing/use that eventually leads to
acquisition. Grammar-translation strategies overwhelmingly adopt a strong-inter-
face position, focusing on the explicit teaching of grammar rules and a ‘focus on
van den Arend 14
forms’ approach to language learning. Consensus in the SLA community, however,

favors the ‘weak-interface’ model.
Despite its strong advocacy for active, communicative uses of Latin in in-
struction, early modern Latin pedagogy also emphasized substantial, explicit teach-
ing of grammar forms and rules, in contrast to a weak-interface position in current
SLA research. Posselius views explicit grammar instruction as a necessary compo-
nent of learning Latin. Though he recognizes that such study is not enough to be able
to successfully produce the language, he affirms its general importance in the face of
more inductive, reading-based approaches to the language:
Boys ought not be held up too long in the study of the
rules of Grammar: in this way the argument should
be disproved and rejected of those who say that free
minds ought not be burdened by the work of studying
rules, but that the Latin language ought to be learned
only through the reading of reputable authors. You
see, although rules and guidelines are not sufficient
for speaking or writing well, nevertheless they ought
to be learned diligently and accurately for significant
and necessary reasons. (139)26
Posselius’ approach here is not drastically dissimilar to arguments made by sup-
porters of grammar-translation methods of instruction – i.e., that some amount of
explicit, rules-based instruction is necessary for students to learn the language –
though it differs vastly from SLA-supported instructional models. Neither Erasmus
nor Comenius disagrees fundamentally with Posselius. Both, however, qualify the
nature and bounds of grammatical instruction.
Believing in a need for grammar instruction, Erasmus wants to control the
quality and quantity of the rules to be taught as well as the timeframe in which expo-
sure to them occurs: “Though I confess that rules of this sort are necessary, I would
prefer, insofar as it is possible, that they be as few as possible, so long as they are
high-quality. Nor have I ever approved of the common crowd of teachers who delay
26 Pueri non nimis diu in discendis praeceptis Grammatices detinendi sunt: sic damnanda & ex-
plodenda est illorum sententia, qui liberalia ingenia labore ediscendi praecepta, non oneranda, sed
Linguam Latinam lectione bonorum autorum tantum discendam esse dicunt. Etsi enim Praecepta &
Regulae Grammaticae ad recte loquendum & scribendum non sufficiunt; tamen propter maximas &
necessarias causas, diligenter & accurate disci debent.
van den Arend 15
their students for years in inculcating these things” (DRS 114-115).27 He expands
his position in greater detail elsewhere, noting his preference for a limited quantity
of very good grammar principles that ought to be as clear as possible (DPI 72-73).28
Comenius agrees and emphasizes the need for providing many specific examples to
help students grasp the rules to be learned:
[I think that] every skill ought to be defined by the
briefest and most specific rules possible; that every
rule ought to be composed of the fewest and most un-
derstandable words; [and that] to every rule ought
to be added many examples, so that the scope of the
rule’s use be sufficiently obvious. (1: 81)29
These perspectives suggest a nuanced awareness of the risks of pursuing instruction
on an abstractly formal level (especially with children), while at the same time pre-
suming that some grammatical explanation provides a helpful framework for SLA.
How closely these positions hew to the specific principles for grammar in-
struction supported by current SLA research remains difficult to determine from their
language alone, since both authors offer few direct examples of the sorts of rules
they believe fit these conditions. Erasmus gestures at them obliquely in theoretical
comments like the ones cited, while Comenius offers an outline of Latin grammar in
his Vestibulum (2: 293ff.), but the praecepta/regulae offered in that text differ little
27 Verum ut huiusmodi [sc. grammatica] praecepta fateor necessaria, ita velim esse, quoad fieri pos-
sit, quam paucissima, modo sint optima. Nec unquam probavi literatorum vulgus qui pueros in his
inculcandis complures annos remorantur.
28 “I confess that in the beginning grammatical rules are rather harsh, and more necessary than
pleasant. But the skill of a teacher will remove a big part of the troublesomeness from these <rules>.
Only the best and most simple [rules] ought to be learned first. With what sort of confusions and chal-
lenges are boys currently tortured, while they study the names of the letters before they recognize
their shapes, while in <the matter> of endings of nouns and verbs they are forced to learn to which
cases, moods, and tenses the same word <might> congrue…. What sort of torture resounds in the
classroom, when these things are demanded of students?” Fateor grammatices praeceptiones initio
subausteras esse, magisque necessarias esse quam iucundas. Verum his quoque bonam molestiae
partem adimet praecipientis dexteritas. Optima tantum primum ac simplicissima praecipienda sunt.
Nunc quibus ambagibus ac difficultatibus excruciantur pueri, dum ediscunt literarum nomina prius-
quam agnoscant figuras, dum in nominum ac verborum inflexionibus coguntur ediscere quot casibus,
modis ac temporibus eadem vox respondeat . . . . Quae carnificina tum perstrepit in ludo, quum haec
a pueris exiguntur?
29 [Puto] omnem artem brevissimis sed exactissimis, includendam esse Regulis. Omnem Regulam
brevissimis, sed dilucidissimis, concipiendam verbis, Omni Regulae subiungenda plurima exempla,
ut quam varie pateat Regulae usus sufficienter patescat.
van den Arend 16
from what scholars today would consider normal for a grammar-translation perspec-
tive. Given this evidence and the important role of explicit grammar instruction in
both medieval and early modern Latin pedagogy,30 it appears that direct teaching of
grammatical rules played a significant role in both Erasmus’ and Comenius’ visions
for Latin education – even if their preferences supported less grammar instruction
than was common among their contemporaries. This stands in distinct contrast to the
‘weak-interface’ position accepted by a substantial portion of the SLA community,
which sees little return in strategies that focus on grammar instruction as opposed to
contextualized and meaning-oriented approaches.
The Language Classroom Environment: Interactive and

Nonthreatening
A pedagogy that accepts Swain’s and Long’s critiques of Krashen includes
interaction and negotiation of meaning among learners as key strategies for SLA.
If the purpose of learning a language is communication, students need to develop
the intellectual tools, perspectives, and skills necessary to facilitate it. These extend
beyond linguistic components (lexicon, syntax, morphology, etc.) to include knowl-
edge of cultural/historical concepts that inform proper language use on a pragmatic
level. An environment that helps students hone those skills through interaction in the
target language is important to SLA research informed instruction.
Though none of our early modern authors frame their pedagogical theory in
these terms, all of them recognize the importance of developing linguistic compe-
tency through interactions that are culturally informed and aimed at enhancing com-
munication. Erasmus hints at one way in which this might be accomplished when
he advocates for teaching stock phrases – i.e., linguistic tools that facilitate further,
genre-specific communication in Latin (DRS 135).31 These are bound to standards
of usage in a Latin tradition informed by Roman cultural practices.32
Posselius follows Erasmus (supra n. 22), taking into consideration the
source of the formulae in question and the teachers’ own use of judgment to discern
30 See, e.g., Black 2001.
31 “Provide some stock phrases with which [students] might then be able to make a beginning of a
speech, and also the end of a speech . . . . Once this has been accomplished seven or eight times, they
will already begin (as Horace says) to swim on their own.” Ostendat et formulas aliquot, quibus ibi
commode possint exordiri, etiam perorare . . . . Id ubi septies aut octies erit factum, iam incipient
(quod ait Horatius) sine cortice nare.
32 On this debate in contemporary terms, see Owens 2016.
van den Arend 17
appropriate turns of phrase (143-4).33 Concerned with students’ developing a ‘cor-

rect’ Latin style based on the received tradition, Posselius attempts to limit barba-
risms by imposing the traditional bounds of the optimi au[c]tores – a category that
itself was debated at length.34 His advice here may appear overly proscriptive, but
it cannot be divorced from the context in which it is offered. The core of the Latin
literary tradition was relatively fixed from an early period and relied upon a canon
of authors to serve as models for style and usage.35 An understanding of them was
integral for participation in the culture of Latin letters.
Perfect command of a received corpus of authors and texts is not, however, a
point that all these writers viewed as essential for Latin acquisition. Balancing com-
prehensiveness and pragmatic realism, Comenius reminded readers that the ultimate
needs/goals of the language learner serve as reasonable bounds for instruction:
Not everything ought to be learned in its entirety to
the point of perfection, but according to need . . . no
one needs an understanding of a language entirely,
and even if someone got it, it would be a useless joke.
Not even Cicero himself (otherwise considered to be
33 “Add to this [that students learn Latin from their teachers rather than “Cicero himself and similar
good authors”] that teachers often assign to boys translation exercises [vertenda], including words
or manners of speaking they have never heard before – indeed, which the teachers themselves don’t
know how they ought to be appropriately and correctly rendered. For which reason above all else
a teacher will take care that he not permit a boy to write or to speak in any other manner than those
which he will have acquired not from him [i.e., the teacher] but from the best authors.” Accedit eo,
quod saepe praeceptores pueris vertenda praescribunt, quorum vel appelationes, vel loquendi mo-
dos, numquam antea audiverunt, imo quae ipsi paedagogi, quomodo recte & proprie reddenda sint
ignorant. Quare ante omnia cavebit Praeceptor, ne puerum vel scribere, vel loqui permittat, nisi istis
modis & rationibus, quas non a se, sed ab optimis autoribus didicerit.
34 Several key contributions to these Early Modern disputes are documented in DellaNeva 2007.
35 This is not intended to imply that parts of the canon did not fluctuate over time. The loss of many
classical sources during the medieval period and their rediscovery in the Renaissance testifies to the
flexible nature of canon-formation and maintenance, as does the eventual exclusion of prominent
late-antique, medieval, and Renaissance Latin authors from the canon with the rise of the altertum-
swissenschaftliche philology. That said, the fundamental components of formal Latin style and gram-
mar were largely fixed along Ciceronian lines quite early – likely by the publication of Quintilian’s
Institutio Oratoria. The resolution of early modern debates about the appropriateness of Ciceronian
imitation only reinforces the degree to which ‘good’ Latin style has remained relatively ossified since
the early 1st century BCE. For further argument on the fixity of Latin, see Stroh 2007.
van den Arend 18
the best teacher) knew the whole Latin language. (1:

127)36
This point aligns well with recent shifts away from a fluency-oriented conception of
language acquisition toward one based on proficiencies. Emphasis is placed on stu-
dents’ ability to perform specific language tasks, while fluency becomes a measure
of the speed and accuracy with which those tasks are accomplished. This framework
is significantly more dynamic, recognizing that students’ skills may demonstrate
proficiency in some circumstances while still requiring significant practice in others.
Freed from the constraint of ‘perfect’ mastery, the language classroom becomes an
environment conducive to a wide range of learning strategies focused on bridging
gaps in students’ proficiencies.
Irrespective of this philosophical change, student affect remains a key con-
sideration in language learning. Krashen’s theory of the ‘affective filter’ empha-
sizes the ways in which language learners’ emotional and psychological comfort
and investment impact the acquisition process (30-32). Subsequent challenges to
Krashen’s formulation have produced more complex and robust theories regarding
student affect and motivation in the classroom, rejecting the concept of a general ‘af-
fective filter’ in favor of a more nuanced understanding of the interactions between
learner, environment, content, and instructor.37 Nevertheless, broad consensus ac-
cepts that students who are relaxed and enjoying their work acquire a language more
quickly than those under stress. This did not escape Posselius, who emphasized the
teacher’s influence in generating a positive learning environment (142).38 Comenius
concurs and extends this observation, recognizing the role that pedagogy plays in
36 Discendae sunt non omnes totae, ad perfectionem usque, sed ad necessitatem . . . nemini totius
alicuius Linguae cognitionem necessariam esse, et si quis eam captet, ridiculum fore et ineptum.
Nam ne Cicero quidem totam Latinam linguam (cuius alioquin summus Magister habetur) scivit.
37 On which, e.g., see Zoltán Dörnyei’s blog.
38 “However much the kindness of an instructor and refinement of the interest and love of literature
bring to the table, to that same degree savageness and cruelty destroy tender and feeble spirits and
scare them off from learning. For which reason teachers should remember that they ought to be
disposed toward their students as if sons, and that they ought neither with excessive harshness or
beatings, or dire curses, extinguish that little flame given by nature, but rather excite and inflame it
with fatherly tenderness.” Quantum vero humanitas praeceptoris & alacritatis & amoris erga bonas
literas adfert, tantum saevitia & crudelitas teneros & imbecillos animos frangit, & a studiis deter-
ret. Quare meminerint Praeceptores, se erga discipulos, ut erga filios, affectos esse oportere, nec vel
nimia austeritate, vel plagis, vel diris execrationibus, igniculum illum a natura datum, extinguere,
sed potius comitate paterna excitare, & inflamare debere.
van den Arend 19
the process (1: 79).39 To this end, Erasmus suggests pedagogic strategies that engage
and entertain students, e.g., games (DPI 70).40 In both early modern and contem-
porary SLA-informed second language teaching sources, the instructor’s ability to
influence affect (positively or negatively) is a shared concern impacting students’
language acquisition and development of proficiency.
Roles: Student & Teacher

One important area of divergence between current SLA research and early
modern pedagogical theory concerns the relative roles of student and teacher in
setting classroom priorities and, consequently, their relationship to one another in
the language acquisition process. Across these early modern sources, the shared
assumption is that the teacher remains the focal point of instruction, both in terms
of classroom management and learning activity. This perspective is expressed im-
plicitly in the verbal expressions used by all of our authors to describe the activi-
ties of both parties: teachers proponere, ostendere, docere, etc. while students se
exercere, exercitia facere, discere, etc. For example, Posselius writes, praeceptor . .
pueris monstret (139); and prudens magister omnia dextre & explicate proponet, &
discipulos in illis . . . utiliter exercebit (141-2). Although all three writers advocate
specific linguistic exercises to promote the development of fluency, their underlying
presumptions about regular classroom operations appear normative for the period.41
39 “The love of knowledge learning must be kindled in boys however possible. Let the method of
teaching diminish the toil of learning, so that there is nothing which might impede the students and
frighten them away from continuing their studies.” Sciendi et discendi ardor quacunque ratione in
pueris inflammandus est. Docendi methodus discendi laborem minuat, ut nihil sit quod discipulos
offendat, et a studiorum continuatione deterreat.
40 “Repetition does not offend, if it is moderate, if it is tempered at once with variety and pleasant-
ness, and finally if things are taught in such a way that even the imagination of work is absent – that
the boy thinks everything is conducted as a game.” Non offendit assiduitas, si moderata sit, si va-
rietate simul et iucunditate condiatur, denique si sic tradantur haec, ut absit laboris imaginatio, sed
puer existimet omnia per lusum agi.
41 Similarly, while none of our authors advocate extreme violence, classroom discipline is a central
concern and, when affective appeals don’t work, corporal punishment remains the go-to contempo-
rary option: e.g. Posselius (142-3) Fideli praeceptori, qui parentum vicarius est, & eorum partes sus-
tinet, in institutione discipulorum iisdem mediis utendum est, quare nec virgae, nec aliae opportunae
animadversiones, ex Scholis tolli aut debent aut possunt . . . sed in his omnibus modus servandus
est, & ira removenda. Erasmus castigates ad nauseam excessive severity on the part of the teacher,
e.g.: [hi praeceptores ignoti, agrestes, frequenter lunatici, praesident ludum literarium, ita ut] dicas
non esse scholam, sed carnificiam, praeter crepitum ferularum, praeter vigarum strepitum, praeter
eiulatus ac singultus, praeter atroces minas nihil illic auditur. Quid aliud hinc discant pueri quam
odisse literas? (DPI 54ff.).
van den Arend 20
Current work in SLA theory, especially research premised on a Socio-cultural model

of acquisition, takes a different perspective, emphasizing the important role students
should play in setting learning agenda and classroom priorities (e.g., in TBLT).
Much of this difference is a consequence of recent developments in educa-
tional and psychological theory. For example, the Socio-cultural Theory of language
acquisition relies heavily on Vygotsky’s formulation of “Zones of Proximal Devel-
opment” (ZPDs) for formulating a model of the language learning process. ZPDs
frame the development of language proficiency according to a three-part trajectory:
(1) what students are unable to accomplish; (2) what students can accomplish with
assistance; and (3) what students can accomplish on their own. Vygotskian theory
concerns itself with the relative relationship between these areas. Its central tenet is
that students will one day be able to do what they currently require assistance to ac-
complish. It operates by controlling the amount of aid provided to students, slowly
removing unnecessary supports as proficiency develops. The amount of assistance
necessary is determined by student-teacher interaction during task performance.
Early modern thinkers did recognize both the importance of establishing
connections between acquired material and new content, and the variation in rates
of learning among students. Erasmus suggests that instruction proceed slowly and
in manageable, connected steps lest students become overwhelmed by demands be-
yond their capabilities (DPI 65-6).42 Comenius likewise stresses the need for the
progression of materials to be self-reinforcing, with both newer and older informa-
tion supporting one another in a reciprocal relationship (1: 93).43 Finally, Posselius
42 “So just as thin little bodies are nourished by even a little food provided repeatedly, likewise boys’
natural abilities by means of familiar subjects, but provided gradually and as if through a game, little
by little become accustomed to greater topics, nor in the meantime is fatigue perceived, because in-
cremental progresses thus deceive the sense of toil, so that their [progresses] nevertheless bring them
[students] to complete success . . . while they (the teachers) take no account of age and they measure
the boys’ capabilities according to their own powers. Right away they press bitterly, right away they
demand mature work, right away they wrinkle their brow[s] if a boy should reply less than expected,
and they are disturbed as if they are engaging with an adult, obviously having forgotten that they
were once boys.” Ut igitur exiguis cibis ac subinde datis aluntur tenera corpuscula, itidem ingenia
puerorum cognatis disciplinis, sed sensim ac ceu per lusum traditis, paulatim assuescunt maioribus,
nec interim sentitur lassitudo, quod minutae accessiones sic fallant laboris sensum, uti nihilo secus
ad profectus summam conferant . . . . Verum sunt qui postulant, ut ilico pueri fiant senes, dum non
habent rationem aetatis, sed ex suis viribus illorum ingenia metiuntur. Protinus instant acerbe, pro-
tinus exigunt plenam operam, protinus corrugant frontem, si minus puer expectationi respondeat, et
sic moventur, quasi cum adulto rem habeant, videlicet obliti se fuisse pueros.
43 “Let all subjects be thus distributed, so that subsequent principles always be based upon the prior
ones, and that the prior principles be strengthened by the subsequent ones.” Studia omnia sic dis-
van den Arend 21
notes the importance of differentiating student work to meet learners wherever they
may be in the acquisition process (138-39).44 Despite the lack of a developed theo-
retical model for conceiving students’ role in the classroom, early modern pedagogy
demonstrated awareness of the need to take into account developmental and learn-
ing differences in instruction.
Resource & Teacher Quality

The use of ‘authentic’ resources in the language classroom has been a recent
point of concern in contemporary SLA-informed pedagogy. Authentic resources
are “those written and oral communications produced by members of a language
and culture group for members of the same language and culture group” (Galloway
133).45 Since these resources are not produced with language teaching in mind, strat-
egies have been developed to support their implementation in foreign and classical
language classrooms. One common approach exhorts teachers to “alter the task,
not the text” – i.e., to focus on generating classroom activities that utilize authen-
tic resources, but in ways appropriate to the students’ proficiency levels (Shrum
and Glisan 84ff.). 46 For example, a teacher might use a passage of authentic Latin
but ask students to address it with strategies appropriate to their proficiency levels
(skimming, word/structure identification, summarizing, etc.). Though this approach
also depends on effective materials selection, it focuses on engaging students with
authentic instances of target language communication from the beginning.
Early modern theorists of Latin instruction assign authentic resources a cen-
tral role in their instructional models. Reacting against tendencies for explicit gram-
matical instruction, Comenius argues that language acquisition occurs best through
encounters with authentic sources (1: 74). While asserting that explicit instruction
ponantur, ut posteriora semper in prioribus fundentur; priora vero a posterioribus firmentur.

44 “Nor on account of the slow and the stupid ought the other boys of good talent be neglected. You
see, often teachers – preferring to assign one and the same tasks to many students of varying levels of
progress – delay and impede those of superior capacity.” Neque propter aliquos hebetes & stupidos,
alii bonae indolis pueri negligendi sunt. Saepe enim magistri una & eadem opera multis, iisque di-
versi progressus discipulis, inservire volentes, alios, bono ingenio preditos, remorantur & impediunt.
45 Debate continues in Latin pedagogy circles regarding the status of, e.g., post-Classical Latin texts
as ‘authentic resources.’ I would suggest that Galloway’s definition offers some resolution, provided
we accept non-native speakers as capable of participating in communication within “a language and
culture group” and recognize the fundamental importance of these resources as intended primarily
for communicative, not pedagogical purposes.
46 Cf. Terry 1998.
van den Arend 22
plays an important preparatory role, Erasmus and Posselius also suggest that the
ancient authors themselves are the most efficient tools for learning Latin (DRS 116,
cf. n. 26), and the ones to which Erasmus primarily encourages recourse (DRS 120).
Moreover, Erasmus recognizes the necessary balance between thoroughness of ex-
planation, affect, and the demands of context that comes from tailoring an acquisi-
tion task to a specific group of students (DRS 137).47 Posselius adds a note on the
selection of specific resources for instruction, encouraging teachers to focus on a
select set of texts offering examples of standard language use before encouraging
students to expand to other resources (141).48 For these thinkers, encounters with au-
thentic resources throughout the learning process were essential to acquiring Latin.
Their position aligns well with SLA research that finds students who engage with
authentic resources as early as a few hours into their language study show substan-
tial gains in proficiency across language skills.49
In addition to concerns about the use of authentic resources, early modern
thinkers were explicit about the qualities that a teacher needed to possess to be
successful in the classroom. Contemporary literature on the traits of an effective in-
structor abounds, and in the context of SLA theory is discussed at length throughout
Shrum & Glisan. I want to end my discussion here, however, by reflecting briefly on
two key points emphasized in the sources from the “long 16th century.”50 Both offer
47 “In lecturing upon the authors I would prefer you not do what the common rabble of teachers these
days – due to some twisted vanity – does, so that you attempt to say everything about each passage,
but no more than what should suffice in explaining the present portion, unless on occasion digress-
ing seems appropriate for the sake of enjoyment.” In praelegendis auctoribus nolim te facere, quod
prava quadam ambitione vulgus professorum hodie facit, ut omni loco coneris omnia dicere, sed ea
duntaxat quae explicando praesenti loco sint idonea, nisi si quando delectandi causa digrediendum
videbitur.
48 “After the crowd of distinguished authors has been driven from the boys’ schools, let one style
of language, the best at that, be put forward, in which let [the students] be detained for a little while,
until they are able to put forth everything in correct Latin, and to express the force and elegance of
an author [i.e., Cicero] by speaking and writing in whatever way, and then they shall be safely given
access to other ancient and more recent writers, whom they will study with no less utility than with
taste.” Explosa e ludis puerorum praecipue Autorum multitudine, unum genus sermonis, idque opti-
mum proponatur, in quo tantisper detineantur, dum omnia pure & latine proferre, & autoris vim ac
elegantiam loquendo & scribendo utcunque exprimere possint, & tum ad alios veteres & recentiores
scriptores tuto admittentur, quos non minori cum utilitate, quam iudicio, pervolutabunt.
49 See Shrum & Glisan 188-94 for a summary of key findings and citations.
50 I borrow the term “long 16th century” from Immanuel Wallerstein without any intent to endorse
his positions in this paper. Wallerstein’s periodization (1450-1640) focuses on the rise of a capitalist
van den Arend 23
important insight into the nature of teaching as a practice and the demands of effec-
tive Latin instruction in an SLA-informed pedagogic approach.
Erasmus addresses the core of affective concerns when he remarks: “The
first step to learning is love for the teacher. It will occur with the progress of time
that a boy who first began to love literature on account of his teacher, afterwards
should love his teacher on account of literature” (DPI 53).51 Comenius extends this
observation to the content of instruction, arguing that the importance of teaching
lies less in ensuring that students acquire specific rote information than it does in
stimulating their intellectual capacities:
It follows that to properly educate the youth is not
to stuff their minds full of a hodge-podge of words,
phrases, sentences, and thoughts collected from au-
thors, but to open them up to an Understanding of
things, so that from it itself as if from a living spring
little streams scatter and as if from the buds of trees
leaves, flowers, fruit bloom forth. (1: 89-90)52
Combined, these perspectives suggest a holistic idea of teaching that recognizes
language education as an interpersonal endeavor with wide-ranging goals and im-
plications.
Attention to the importance of affect, however, neither neglects nor obviates
the necessity for the instructor to develop a command of the language and instruc-
tional strategy. For these thinkers, the teacher’s Latin proficiency and pedagogical
awareness come first. Posselius offers the best summary of the consensus position:
It is necessary that those who wish to usefully educate
others be themselves educated in Latin and Greek, and
grasp the most expedient paths and methods of teach-
ing, and succeed in the gentle conduct and faculty of
world-economy but is convenient for my purposes as an approximate descriptor for the chronological
period from which I draw the texts in this paper. Though Comenius’ Opera Didactica Omnia was not
published in its entirety until 1657, it was mostly complete by 1636.
51 Primus discendi gradus est praeceptoris amor. Progressu temporis fiet, ut puer qui prius literas
amare coeperat propter doctorem, post doctorem amet propter literas . . . .
52 Sequitur, iuventutem recte erudire, non esse Verborum, Phrasium, Sententiatum, Opinionum, far-
raginem ex Authoribus collectam ingeniis infercire, sed rerum Intellectum aprire, ut ex eo ipso velut
fonte vivo rivuli scaturiant, et tanquam ex Arborum gemmis folia, flores, fructus, progerminent.
van den Arend 24
delighting and stimulating young men. Indeed, how

is one able to teach others, who himself is unable to
speak properly and without error, and cannot produce
in speaking and pronouncing the very thing which he
asks of his own students? (141)53
Effective Latin teachers, according to these sources, need two skills first and fore-
most: sufficient proficiency in the language of instruction and a firm grasp of the
most efficient/efficacious teaching strategies for helping students achieve their own
proficiency in turn. Contemporary Latin teacher’s explorations of both SLA theory
and active Latin only highlight the continued centrality of linguistic and pedagogic
skills in the language classroom.
Summation
The relationship between this early modern tradition of Latin pedagogy and
contemporary SLA research is, on balance of the evidence, complex. Though schol-
ars like Erasmus, Posselius, and Comenius could intuit many of the core principles
common to major theories of second language acquisition, in other respects their
commitment to other long-established Latin pedagogical strategies sharply contrasts
with current best practice in SLA theory-informed instruction. For example, while
these scholars demonstrated firm support for active language instruction that would
meet key criteria of contemporary comprehensible input and output/interaction
models, their collective endorsement of explicit grammar instruction stakes a posi-
tion contrary to data supporting a ‘weak-interface’ between taught grammar rules
and language acquisition. Similarly, their recognition of the importance of class-
room environment – expressed in terms of student affect and instructor familiarity
with Latin language/pedagogy – was juxtaposed to a teacher-centered classroom
management model that has few similarities with the student-centered, communica-
tive approaches to present-day instruction supported by research and organizations
like ACTFL.
A few points, however, bear reiteration in the context of current interest in
SLA-informed instruction among Latin instructors and enthusiasts. First, we can
53 Necesse est eos, qui alios utiliter erudire volent, Latine & Graece doctos esse; & vias ac rationes
docendi expeditissimas tenere; & humanitate ac facultate delectandi & excitandi pueros valere. Quo-
modo enim potest alios docere, qui ipse pure & emendate loqui non potest, nec id ipsum loquendo &
pronunciando praestare, quod a suis discipulis requirit?
van den Arend 25
clearly see a developed tradition of Latin pedagogy, supported by important edu-

cational theorists across the early modern period, that embraced active use of the
language as a core instructional strategy for developing students’ proficiency with
the language. Moreover, their positions on the role of both language input and out-
put on learning align closely with the research-supported understandings of modern
SLA theory. Those theorists also showed an acute awareness of the importance of
extra-linguistic factors on language acquisition, emphasizing the roles that cultural
understanding, student affect, and teacher competency play in positive educational
outcomes. Finally, all three thinkers advocate strongly for the use of authentic ma-
terials in the instructional process, stressing the benefits for language learning that
accrue to students whose educational experience includes working with texts written
for purely communicative (i.e., non-instructional) purposes – another argument now
supported by research in SLA.
On the other hand, these same theorists commit to a model of direct grammar
instruction that both anticipates current grammar-translation pedagogy and at the
same time is largely unsupported by much of the literature across different theories
of SLA. They situate this grammar-oriented instruction in a model of classroom
management that focuses on the teacher, emphasizes discipline, and leaves no room
for student input in the class’ learning outcomes or the activities used to pursue them.
Whatever common points can be discerned between these thinkers’ pedagogies and
current SLA research, they also espouse positions that differ substantially from pres-
ent understandings of student development and language acquisition. Erasmus, Pos-
selius, and Comenius may have been insightful and gifted teachers, but empiricist
researchers in SLA theory and instruction they were not. Whatever we might wish
to glean from their instructional strategies and pedagogical models ought to be taken
cum grano salis and considered with and against data available from studies in in-
structed and theoretical SLA.
A Way Forward: Back to the Future

The urgency felt behind Dr. Zarrow’s appeal to ‘catch up’ with our colleagues
is pressing. As the sophistication of SLA-informed instruction in modern language
classrooms continues to develop, Latin risks falling behind in the race for students
and funding. Research-supported pedagogy is becoming an imperative for college
and university programs to remain competitive. It is no surprise, then, that the trend
toward SLA strategies at the K-12 level is starting to make waves in post-secondary
van den Arend 26
education. Active Latin has long had a presence at institutions like the University of
Kentucky, the University of Massachusetts at Boston, Wyoming Catholic College,
and (more recently) Belmont Abby College.54 The Paideia Institute’s outreach ef-
forts continue to grow, and it now maintains institutional memberships with many of
the top PhD-granting departments in the field. Cornell University’s hiring of Msgr.
Daniel Gallagher as Associate Professor of Practice in Latin signaled a significant
transition toward active Latin instruction in colleges designated as research-one in-
stitutions. While it remains too soon to judge the success of this endeavor, more
programs seem to have followed Cornell’s lead, formally supporting engagement
with active Latin either via an elective course (e.g., USC’s CLA 490 or Princeton’s
LAT 110) or through the institution of extracurricular programming like the Oxford
Latinitas Project.55
This burgeoning interest in SLA theory underlines the need for serious dis-
cussions about pedagogy throughout the classics community. In anticipation of
those talks, the conflict that I described at the beginning of this paper between a
‘traditional’ (Grammar/ Translation) and a ‘novel’ (SLA) approach to Latin instruc-
tion would benefit from a reframing. Given my arguments above, the relationship
between both methodologies seems more complex and durative than it first appears,
and the temporal framing of traditional/novel becomes an inadequate descriptor of
their positions in the history of Latin pedagogy. Though instruction reliant upon an
appeal to SLA theory for its justification is necessarily new, many of the principles
it deploys seem to relate to long-standing practices in the history of Latin pedago-
gy.56 At the same time, appeals to early modern humanist models by active Latin
supporters ought to be made carefully, since even prominent examples of that tradi-
tion maintain many positions held by adherents to the grammar-translation method.
Rather than easy divisions between different approaches and eras, we are confronted
with webs of intermingled practices and priorities.
Marriage remains a useful metaphor for reflection on this front. Though Lat-
in teachers are finding much support and value in instructional strategies borrowed
54 Of these institutions, only the University of Kentucky offers a degree in Active Latin – the Gradu-
ate Certificate in Latin Studies associated with its Institutum Studiis Latinis Provehendis, of which
the author is a graduate.
55 For more on the Oxford Latinitas Project, consult their website.
56 For earlier 20th century Anglophone examples of various parts of this tradition, consider the work
of W.H.D. Rouse, R.B. Appleton, W.H.S. Jones, C.W.E. Peckett, and A.R. Munday. Active Latin
instructional strategies remained a (minority) presence in continental Europe, as evidenced in the
biographies of many fellows of the Academia Latinitati Fovendae.
van den Arend 27
from our modern language colleagues, there exists a long tradition of teaching Latin
in ways that approach or approximate now-firm premises of second language peda-
gogy. Many of these strategies are specifically adapted to Latin’s relatively unique
position as an ossified literary language – a challenge not confronted in Spanish,
German, Hindi, Korean, etc. classrooms, whose priorities are, in general, oriented
far more toward interpersonal engagement than strictly literary interpretation.57 For
example, early modern reliance upon colloquia and fabulae scaenicae linked active
classroom use of the language with established literary genres, preparing students to
engage with canonical authors like Terence and Plautus (and medieval authors like
Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim) while situating instruction in the context of meaning-
oriented comprehensible input. Incorporating the panoply of available early modern
colloquia and fabulae scaenicae into classrooms and engaging with them through
active use of the language – e.g., through student-composed (and performed) texts
modeled on each genre – illustrates one opportunity for linking early modern peda-
gogical resources with contemporary practice informed by SLA search. Given the
long tradition of teaching Latin actively, a reappraisal of the field’s pedagogical
resources for SLA-informed instruction along these lines seems both timely and
appropriate.
An attempt to relate the early modern pedagogical tradition to current un-
derstandings of SLA processes necessarily requires that the two remain distinct.
Scholars like Erasmus, Posselius, and Comenius were not engaged in a research-
informed pedagogical tradition, nor did they operate under the same contextual and
circumstantial constraints as today’s Latin teachers. At the same time, such an ap-
proach enables us to uncover the similarities between early modern Latin pedagogy
and research-supported instructional strategies, empowering us to revive approaches
from our pedagogical history that are sufficiently flexible to align with current SLA
theory. That project depends on an exploration of Latin’s long and complex peda-
gogical history, teasing out often interconnected and (from a research perspective)
contradictory positions and measuring them against current best practice in SLA
research-informed instruction. Investigators themselves need (as Posselius notes)
to be sufficiently grounded in the Latin language and SLA research to adequately
judge the value and utility of the material that they find.58 Moreover, this process
57 See supra n. 35.

58 And a small but growing body of literature testing established SLA principles directly on Latin,
e.g., Hensley 2015, Lloyd 2017, and Oakes 2017.
van den Arend 28
will involve arguments and conflicts along the way. To be effective, we may have
to divorce ourselves from some long-held beliefs about language teaching and the
strategies that accompany them. Some other approaches may require separation and
negotiation before they are once again practicable. Compromise will almost certain-
ly be required, blending commitments to a spectrum of Latin pedagogical models,
much like the early modern theorists explored in this paper. In every event, as we
continue to borrow more and more strategies designed for living, modern languages,
we would also benefit from combining something old with something new – marry-
ing early modern Latin pedagogy with contemporary SLA theory.
Works Cited
American Classical League and Society for Classical Studies Joint Task Force on
Standards for Classical Language Learning. Standards for Classical Lan-
guage Learning. Rev. ed. Draft. Hamilton, OH: American Classical League,
2017.
Black, Robert. Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Tradi-
tion and Innovation from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Bloemendal, Jan, and Henk J.M. Nellen “Philology: Editions and Editorial Practices
in the Early Modern Period.” Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Neo-Latin World.
Ed. Philip Ford, Jan Bloemendal, and Charles Fantazzi. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Buisson, Ferdinand. Répertoire des ouvrages pédagogique du XVIe siècle: Biblio-

thèques de Paris et des departements. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1886.
Carlon, Jacqueline. “Quomodo Dicitur? The Importance of Memory in Language

Learning.” Teaching Classical Languages 7.2 (2016): 109-135.
Carlon, Jacqueline. “The Implications of SLA Research for Latin Pedagogy: Mod-
ernizing Latin Instruction and Securing Its Place in Curricula.” Teaching
Classical Languages 4.2 (2013): 106-122.
Comenius, Iohannis Amos. I. A. Comenii Opera Didactica Omnia, variis hucusque

occasionibus scripta, diversisque locis edita: nunc autem non tantum in
unum, ut simul sint, collecta, sed & ultimo conatu in Systema unum mechan-
van den Arend 29
ice constructum, redacta. 4 vols. Amsterdam: Christophorus Cunradus &

Gabriel à Roy, 1657.
DeKeyser, Robert M. “Learning Second Language Grammar Rules: An Experiment

with a Miniature Linguistic System.” Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion 17.3 (1995): 379-410.
DellaNeva, Joann, ed. Ciceronian Controversies. Trans. Brian Duvick. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 2007.
Deneire, Tom. “Editing Neo-Latin texts: Editorial Principles; Spelling and Punc-
tuation.” Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the Neo-Latin World. Ed. Philip Ford, Jan
Bloemendal, and Charles Fantazzi. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Donato, Richard, and Bonnie Adair-Hauck. “The PACE Model: A Story-Based Ap-
proach to Meaning and Form for Standards-Based Language Learning.” The
French Review 76.2 (2002): 265-276.
Ellis, Rod. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008.
Erasmus, Desiderius. “De pueris statim et liberaliter instituendis.” Opera Omnia

Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami: Recognita et Adnotatione Critica Instructa
Notisque Illustrata, Ordinis Primi, Tomus Secundus. Amsterdam: North-
Holland Publishing Company, 1971. 1-78.
Erasmus, Desiderius. “Ratio studii ac legendi interpretandique auctores.” Opera

Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami: Recognita et Adnotatione Critica In-
structa Notisque Illustrata, Ordinis Primi, Tomus Secundus. Amsterdam:
North-Holland Publishing Company, 1971. 79-151.
Galloway, V. “Constructing cultural realities: “facts” and frameworks of associa-

tion.” The Coming of Age of the Profession. Ed. J. Haper, M. Lively, and M.
Williams. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1998.
Goldberg, David, Dennis Looney and Natalia Lusin. Enrollments in Languages Oth-
er than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2013.
Research Findings. New York: Modern Language Association of America,
2015.
van den Arend 30
Hensley, Eric Charles. “The Direct Method of Teaching Latin.” MA Thesis. 2015.
Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Ox-

ford: Pergamon Press, 2004.
Leonhardt, Jürgen. Latin: Story of a World Language. Trans. Kenneth Kronenberg.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Lindzey, Ginny. “The Biduum Experience: Speaking Latin to Learn.” Teaching

Classical Languages 6.1 (2015): 72-107.
Lloyd, Mair Elizabeth. “Living Latin: Exploring a Communicative Approach to Lat-

in Teaching Through a Sociocultural Perspective on Language Learning.”
PhD Thesis. 2017.
Long, Michael H. Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teach-

ing. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014.
Long, Michael H. “The role of the linguistic environment in second language acqui-
sition.” Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Ed. William C. Ritchie
and Tej Bhatia. New York: Academic Press, 1996. 413-468.
Long, Michael H. “Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching method-

ology.” Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective. Ed. Kees
De Bot, Ralph Ginsberg, and Claire Kramsch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
1991. 39-52.
Long, Michael H. “Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second

language classroom.” On TESOL ’82: Pacific perspectives on language
learning and teaching. Ed. M. A. Clarke and J. Handscomb. Washington:
TESOL, 1983. 207-225.
Long, Michael H. “Input, interaction and second language acquisition.” Native

language and foreign language acquisition. Ed. Harris Winitz. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences 379. New York: Academy of Sciences,
1981. 259-278.
Minkova, Milena. “Conversational Latin: 1650 to the Present.” Brill’s Encyclopae-

dia of the Neo-Latin World. Ed. Philip Ford, Jan Bloemendal, and Charles
Fantazzi. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
van den Arend 31
Oakes, Daylin L. “Teaching Latin as a Living Language: Reviving Ancient, Medi-

eval, and Renaissance Pedagogy for the Modern Classroom.” MA Thesis.
2017.
Owens, Patrick. “Barbarisms at the Gate: An Analysis of Some Perils in Active Lat-
in Pedagogy.” Classical World 109.4 (2016): 507-523.
Patrick, Robert. “Making Sense of Comprehensible Input in the Latin Classroom.”

Teaching Classical Languages 6.1 (2015): 108-136.
Posselius, Iohannis. “De ratione discendae ac docendae linguae Latinae et Grae-

cae.” Posselius, Iohannis. Iohannis Posselii Orationes Octo, Habitae in Pub-
licis Congressibus Academiae Rostochiensis. Frankfurt am Main: Ioannis
Spießii, 1589. 135-153.
Rasmussen, Susan Thornton. “Why Oral Latin.” Teaching Classical Languages 6.1
(2015): 37-50.
Sadler, John Edward. J. A. Comenius and the Concept of Universal Education. New
York: Routledge, 2013.
Shrum, Judith L. and Eileen W. Glisan. Teacher’s Handbook: Contextualized Lan-

guage Instruction. 5th Edition. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning, 2016.
Stroh, Wilfred. Latein ist tot, es lebe Latein!: Kleine Geschichte einer großen Spra-
che. Berlin: List, 2007.
Swain, Merrill. “The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through
collaborative dialogue.” Sociocultural theory and second language acquisi-
tion. Ed. James P. Lantolf. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 97-114.
Swain, Merrill. “Three functions of output in second language learning.” Principle

and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson.
Ed. Guy Cook and Barbara Seidlhofer. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1995. 125-144.
Swain, Merrill. “Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input

and comprehensible output in its development.” Input in second language
acquisition. Ed. Susan M. Gass and Carolyn G. Madden. Rowley: Newbury
House, 1985. 235-253.
van den Arend 32
Terry, Robert M. “Authentic tasks and materials for testing in the foreign language
classroom.” The Coming of Age of the Profession. Ed. J. Haper, M Lively,
and M. Williams. Boston: Heinle & Heinle, 1998. 277-290.
Tunberg, Terence. “Conversational Latin to 1650.” Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the

Neo-Latin World. Ed. Philip Ford, Jan Bloemendal, and Charles Fantazzi.
Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Tunberg, Terence. De rationibus quibus homines docti artem Latine colloquendi et

ex tempore dicendi saeculis XVI et XVII coluerint. Leuven: Leuven Univer-
sity Press, 2012.
VanPatten, Bill, and Jessica Williams, Theories in Second Language Acquisition: an

Introduction. 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Walch, Johann. Historia Critica Linguae Latinae. Leipzig: Iohannis Frederici Gle-
ditschii & Filii, 1729.

vandenArendTCL10 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

vandenArendTCL10 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching Classical Languages Volume 10, Issue 1

van den Arend 1

Something Old, Something New: Marrying Early

Alan van den Arend

Key Concepts in SLA Theory

2. An interactive environment that models and presents a variety of

3. Opportunities for learners to interact communicatively with one an-

4. Conversations and tasks that are purposeful and meaningful to the

5. Explicit instruction in strategies that facilitate language awareness,

6. A nonthreatening environment that encourages self-expression;

7. Opportunities for learners to work within their Zones of Proximal

8. Opportunities for language learners to participate in setting the

Types of Communication: Comprehensible Input

of context or extra-linguistic information” (Krashen 20-30). Theoretical consensus

Types of Communication: Output & Interaction

Types of Communication: Explicit Grammar Instruction

forms’ approach to language learning. Consensus in the SLA community, however,

The Language Classroom Environment: Interactive and

appropriate turns of phrase (143-4).33 Concerned with students’ developing a ‘cor-

the best teacher) knew the whole Latin language. (1:

Roles: Student & Teacher

Current work in SLA theory, especially research premised on a Socio-cultural model

Resource & Teacher Quality

ponantur, ut posteriora semper in prioribus fundentur; priora vero a posterioribus firmentur.

delighting and stimulating young men. Indeed, how

clearly see a developed tradition of Latin pedagogy, supported by important edu-

A Way Forward: Back to the Future

57 See supra n. 35.

Buisson, Ferdinand. Répertoire des ouvrages pédagogique du XVIe siècle: Biblio-

Carlon, Jacqueline. “Quomodo Dicitur? The Importance of Memory in Language

Comenius, Iohannis Amos. I. A. Comenii Opera Didactica Omnia, variis hucusque

ice constructum, redacta. 4 vols. Amsterdam: Christophorus Cunradus &

DeKeyser, Robert M. “Learning Second Language Grammar Rules: An Experiment

DellaNeva, Joann, ed. Ciceronian Controversies. Trans. Brian Duvick. Cambridge:

Erasmus, Desiderius. “De pueris statim et liberaliter instituendis.” Opera Omnia

Erasmus, Desiderius. “Ratio studii ac legendi interpretandique auctores.” Opera

Galloway, V. “Constructing cultural realities: “facts” and frameworks of associa-

Krashen, Stephen. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Ox-

Leonhardt, Jürgen. Latin: Story of a World Language. Trans. Kenneth Kronenberg.

Lindzey, Ginny. “The Biduum Experience: Speaking Latin to Learn.” Teaching

Lloyd, Mair Elizabeth. “Living Latin: Exploring a Communicative Approach to Lat-

Long, Michael H. Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teach-

Long, Michael H. “Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching method-

Long, Michael H. “Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in the second

Long, Michael H. “Input, interaction and second language acquisition.” Native

Minkova, Milena. “Conversational Latin: 1650 to the Present.” Brill’s Encyclopae-

Oakes, Daylin L. “Teaching Latin as a Living Language: Reviving Ancient, Medi-

Patrick, Robert. “Making Sense of Comprehensible Input in the Latin Classroom.”

Posselius, Iohannis. “De ratione discendae ac docendae linguae Latinae et Grae-

Shrum, Judith L. and Eileen W. Glisan. Teacher’s Handbook: Contextualized Lan-

Swain, Merrill. “Three functions of output in second language learning.” Principle

Swain, Merrill. “Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input

Tunberg, Terence. “Conversational Latin to 1650.” Brill’s Encyclopaedia of the

Tunberg, Terence. De rationibus quibus homines docti artem Latine colloquendi et

VanPatten, Bill, and Jessica Williams, Theories in Second Language Acquisition: an

You might also like